A double standard - One mate forever? The OW vs the MM

[Pierre]

Coco:

 

In a few years, when you enter the calm more routine stage of a relationship. Will you take a lover?

[cocorico]

Coco:

 

In a few years, when you enter the calm more routine stage of a relationship. Will you take a lover?

 

I'm not sure what you mean. When does a R become "calm" or "routine"? Surely that depends on how the people in the R approach it? We have known each other for 10 years, been together for eight, and nothing feels routine yet. Sure, at our ages things are calmer, but far from boring. We still have so much to learn about each other because we're growing, changing people.

 

Are you asking, if I get bored, will I take a lover? If I'm bored, why would I stay in the R?

[cocorico]

I didn't call you on anything but if you feel that way....not my issue.

 

You said, I wanted to stay in the country. Actually, I don't. I could care less where we lived. I want to live *with him*, which is something entirely different to what you claimed.

 

It was your t/j, nice try calling time on it to get the last word.

 

So it seems the gov. is not forcing you to marry. You are doing that because you want to stay in the country.

 

Ten characters...

[Pierre]

I'm not sure what you mean. When does a R become "calm" or "routine"? Surely that depends on how the people in the R approach it? We have known each other for 10 years, been together for eight, and nothing feels routine yet. Sure, at our ages things are calmer, but far from boring. We still have so much to learn about each other because we're growing, changing people.

 

Are you asking, if I get bored, will I take a lover? If I'm bored, why would I stay in the R?

 

Congratulations for keeping it fresh after eight years. The two of you are doing a great job in meeting each other's emotional needs.

 

But, all relationships hit a boring stage. The weak tend to quit whereas others find a way to bring back the butterflies. But, you are doing great and as time passes by the need to settle down is greater. I have to congratulate you for your approach.

[pbjbear]

Just because something is natural doesnt mean it is right. I dont get why people think natural = right.

 

Its natural for women to prefer men that have more money...its in our evolutionary genes. Alot of the same people who argue polygamy is natural get so pissy if women choose men based mostly on money. People pick and choose within this argument things that will benefit THEM. People are innately selfish and looking to justify behavior that benefits them and unjustify behavior that DOESNT benefit them.

 

If guys cheat and use evolution as an excuse, welp, Im becoming a golddigger. Dont hate...its in my genes just like cheating is in yours.

 

I only read the original post

[ThatJustHappened]

The state is forcing us to marry in order to be together.

 

What part of that are you not understanding? We want to be together. That requires us to:

1) both live in his country. Where they require us to be M.

2) both live in my country, where the state requires us to be M.

3) both live in another country, whose visa requirements would vary but in the cases we explored, would require us to be M if we were to be certain of both being granted access.

 

How hard can this possibly be to understand???

 

I think Bent's point was that the state is not forcing you to marry. You just have to marry in order to remain in your current country of residence. You could have moved and remained boyfriend/girlfriend.

[cocorico]

I think Bent's point was that the state is not forcing you to marry. You just have to marry in order to remain in your current country of residence. You could have moved and remained boyfriend/girlfriend.

 

Moved where?

[ThatJustHappened]

Moved where?

 

Not my job to figure that out.

[Eggplant]

Most issues with cheating is because people who KNOW they are serial couplers lie about their limited monogamy ability to dupe a person who is a life time coupler into a relationship they wouldn't enter if the true circumstances were revealed.

 

I think this is why humans invented the institution of marriage. Even back in the stone age. So that before a woman (or man) gets pregnant, she has assurance that he will stay and be loyal and support her and the children. Today, divorce has been de-stigmatized, so it's kind of like the wild west.

 

I specifically told my exes if a single lifelong relationship was not enough to keep looking, both lied to dupe me. I will always be angry for the years I lost to those liars.

 

Same story that has always been happening and will always continue to happen. I think in general more women want life-long committed relationships. In general men want... blah blah same dynamic as it's always been.

 

I Hate, I mean strongly dislike liars.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Eggplant

[OpenBook]

To ask those married *man or woman* to remain faithful forever - is that truly realistic?

 

Forever is an awfully looooooonnnnnngggggg time. If you want to get technical, the standard marriage vows only cover it "til death do you part.":D

 

To me, faithfulness goes a lot further than just sexual fidelity in the marriage vows. You're promising a hell of a lot more than that. Therefore I believe it is impossible for any of us wretched human souls to uphold without exception the vow to love, honor and cherish one another. Everybody fails some part of it at some point.

 

All the same, I remain horrified to this day - HORRIFIED - that I was unable to uphold that vow in my own M. I had no business making that kind of promise to somebody else. And with every life decision I've made since then, I have carefully avoided repeating that same mistake again.

 

It's just too much of a loaded promise to make.

[Spark1111]

Monogamy is a choice. it may not be natural, but it is a choice and since I have evolved from the caveman, I embrace it both intellectually and emotionally.

 

I have only been with one person at a time and I was exclusive with them.

 

I don't share well and the thought somewhat sickens me of sharing someone emotionally and physically with another. Personally could never do it,not for love or money.

 

it's messy and dangerous to be in an exclusive relationship and entertain and fuel attractions to another; bad for the relationship, the clan, and dangerously unhealthy to oneself.

 

for me, it was not hard to shut down attractions to another. I just did it because I realized what I would be risking and the emotional upheaval it would cost me.

 

The cost always outweighed the risk for me.

 

With that being said, many men, or MM, who feel like they are dying in monogamy and feel entitled to act on their biology, are absolutely horrified to discover their wife, as most women, also had a biological urge to be with, crush on, be attracted to other men.

 

Some of us acted on it. Some of us did not.

[ComingInHot]

Nature vs Nurture huh?

I love that Promises!! Rock in on the topics.

 

In response;

 

It is in nature to survive, procreate, continue against all odds no matter who or what tries to get in the way.

It is in My nature (instinct/impulse) to win, fight, fight back, achieve over others.

 

But I have to remember that I am more than just an animal. I have free will and am above animals in my ability to reason and consciously choose a different path.

 

Because of this I am able to choose Not to kill someone getting involved where they shouldn't.

I am able to choose Not to steal just because I want more and the opportunity arises.

I am able to show my love and commitment to my H & family by Choosing Not to involve others sexually in my M unnecessarily adding uncommon outside genes to threaten my family unit.

Are the above choices Natural, I don't tend to think so but that's what separates me from the beasts of the earth* (by beasts, I mean old school for animals )

[promises]

Forever is an awfully looooooonnnnnngggggg time. If you want to get technical, the standard marriage vows only cover it "til death do you part.":D

 

To me, faithfulness goes a lot further than just sexual fidelity in the marriage vows. You're promising a hell of a lot more than that. Therefore I believe it is impossible for any of us wretched human souls to uphold without exception the vow to love, honor and cherish one another. Everybody fails some part of it at some point.

 

All the same, I remain horrified to this day - HORRIFIED - that I was unable to uphold that vow in my own M. I had no business making that kind of promise to somebody else. And with every life decision I've made since then, I have carefully avoided repeating that same mistake again.

 

It's just too much of a loaded promise to make.

 

Interesting take. I am going to have to read a bit of your story. Perfection is an impossible feat. So, to ask another human to uphold all of these vows (all of them, love, honor, cherish, etc.) for the lifetime together is a seriously unlikely scenario. We all fall short. Don't beat yourself up too much.

[promises]

Nature vs Nurture huh?

I love that Promises!! Rock in on the topics.

 

In response;

 

It is in nature to survive, procreate, continue against all odds no matter who or what tries to get in the way.

It is in My nature (instinct/impulse) to win, fight, fight back, achieve over others.

 

But I have to remember that I am more than just an animal. I have free will and am above animals in my ability to reason and consciously choose a different path.

 

Because of this I am able to choose Not to kill someone getting involved where they shouldn't.

I am able to choose Not to steal just because I want more and the opportunity arises.

I am able to show my love and commitment to my H & family by Choosing Not to involve others sexually in my M unnecessarily adding uncommon outside genes to threaten my family unit.

Are the above choices Natural, I don't tend to think so but that's what separates me from the beasts of the earth* (by beasts, I mean old school for animals )

 

Well, I've been thinking a lot about nature vrs nurture in many aspects of life. I feel like marriage argues the same thinking.

 

Nature to keep threats away from family unit. Interesting and true in most of nature.

[MissBee]

Huh?? If the state *forces* you to marry as the only way to be together, how is that hypocritical? It's not like you're exercising free choice - you are simply operating under the constraints imposed on you by the state.

 

Many people don't believe in tax, but they pay them because the law requires them to. Are they also hypocrites?

 

Not sure what country you live in, so I can't say it isn't true there, but in America and my native country, the state doesn't force anyone to marry or else they can't be together. Tons of people in America, included gay people, live together, raise families and have great "together" lives with no state-sanctioned marriage involve. Some have their own personal commitment ceremonies though, with vows they take seriously.

 

In my native country, more of the population is involved in common law marriages than those legally wed.

 

So the idea that people cannot be together without marriage seems like some anachronistic notion from Biblical times to me...as it looks nothing like current America or even where I'm from.

[MissBee]

So it seems the gov. is not forcing you to marry. You are doing that because you want to stay in the country.

 

Ohhhh! I responded before reading the entire thread.

 

I sorta get it now.

 

Marrying to get citizenship or because of immigration reasons is entirely different than what it seemed cocorico was saying. It appeared at first as though she was saying, people cannot be together without being forced to marry period. The latter statement no doubt leads to confusion and seems very absurd, versus qualifying that if you are not a citizen of a country, you can only stay there with your partner who is from there if you are a married couple. The initial statement was misleading, as it's not because the government has any crazy desire for people to marry to be together, they simply don't want any and anyone randomly living in their country but (rightfully) make exceptions for a couple who is married.

 

But it is not as if there is some ban on being in unmarried relationships (which is what it seemed like was being said). They don't care about your relationship per se actually and aren't concerned about if you want to be together, they only care in so far as it relates to your legal status as a citizen or non-citizen. If one dislikes marriage, after the person is naturalized, you all can divorce and then live as an unmarried couple with no threats of deportation.

Edited February 21, 2013 by MissBee

[cocorico]

. If one dislikes marriage, after the person is naturalized, you all can divorce and then live as an unmarried couple with no threats of deportation.

 

If one plans to naturalise. That would involve an even bigger hypocrisy. I cannot swear loyalty to a Crown when I am a fervent republican (in the worldwide, not American, sense of the word). I also have no wish to become a citizen of any country but my own. I am not here because I want to be here, I am here because I want to be with him. In a couple of years we are likely to leave this country anyway, and would be faced with the same issue elsewhere.

[cocorico]

Well, I've been thinking a lot about nature vrs nurture in many aspects of life. I feel like marriage argues the same thinking.

 

Nature to keep threats away from family unit. Interesting and true in most of nature.

 

The world is round, and many paths will lead you to the same destination.

 

In nature, some animals (inc some birds) pair for life, and are monogamous. Some pair for a season, and are serially monogamous. Some are promiscuous. All of these strategies work; some better than others in a particular context.

 

A recent study showed that for some species, monogamy produced more young over time than serial monogamy, so if you measure success in terms of breeding outcomes alone, you may consider that a better strategy. Though of course it only works where both mates survive to continue breeding, and effectively removes both from the gene pool if something happens to one.

[OpenBook]

A recent study showed that for some species, monogamy produced more young over time than serial monogamy, so if you measure success in terms of breeding outcomes alone, you may consider that a better strategy.

 

Well, when you put it THAT way... :D:D

[waterwoman]

There is another site that I visit where one poster describes monogamy in terms of a sexual preference such as S&M or troilism. Fair enough I guess. And while I can accept that view, and i can also accept that over the centuries marriage might well have been a state tool to keep 'breeding females' under control and to legislate for the safe distribution of wealth (ie keep it wear it belongs) I think that monogamy is nowadays as valid a choice as any other. But it isn't easy.

 

The more I think about the more I realise that marriage isn't about 'love' in the hearts and flowers sense of the word - it's about committment, economic and emotional, it's about having someone you can trust to always watch your back and support you when you need it. And yes it means to a large extent you have to be able to take them for granted. There will be periods of your life when you won't be 'in love' and there are times when 'love' takes a back seat because the kids/work/extended family are taking all your energy and time. But that's OK - or it should be between two grown adults - because marriage is a joint project. And when all the hassle is over the marriage will still be there to be revived and rejuvinated. H makes my lifestyle possible. I make his possible. It's a structure and it needs to be strong. You need to choose right in the first place and be prepared to constantly assess and review.

 

An affair says '**** you! I want what I want' - it is the ultimate act of betrayal and selfishness. I don't know if I will ever get that sense of safety and stability back with H. So no, it isn't for everyone but it is an option <shrug>

[melenkurion]

What are your thoughts on fidelity?

 

I believe that nature programmes us to reproduce as much as possible. The relentless drive to ensure our genetic material survives. So yes, I believe we have that natural urge that perhaps means that it isn't necessarily natural to be faithful. That I do accept.

 

However I also believe that our short term desires and drives are because we are programmed to reproduce, not to be happy. Long term happiness is something we have to take full responsibility for. To some extent we have to fight against nature to be happy long term. Long term happiness can involve not giving in to short-term desire, and that isn't particularly natural.

 

I don't see that as particularly surprising. We are well aware that our desire for food arose when food supplies were far less certain than they are now. Our nature is to eat. Now that most of us have plentiful food, it's clear that we must exert self-control for our long term health.

 

I do an awful lot of things that aren't natural. If I were to get dangerously sick with a curable illness, I would seek treatment, I wouldn't choose to let nature take its course.

[cocorico]

one would hope we've evolved just a little bit )

 

Our planet facing extinction because of global warming etc suggests evolution, but not necessarily in a healthy direction

[Pierre]

Many that are against monogamy would suggest that this practice is an imposition by society. And this is partially true, but many humans in their most pure form also crave exclusivity. So we are back into our own human ambivalence.

[cocorico]

Many that are against monogamy would suggest that this practice is an imposition by society. And this is partially true, but many humans in their most pure form also crave exclusivity. So we are back into our own human ambivalence.

 

I think there is a huge difference between monogamy and exclusivity.

 

I am opposed to monogamy for reasons I've stated previously. Yet I practise exclusivity within my R. There is no contradiction. Polyamory is not compulsory for those who oppose the societal strictures of monogamy - any more than those of us who are pro choice feel the need to abort every foetus we may ever conceive.

 

It's about the freedom to choose, not about imposing one practice or the other on everyone for all times.

 

ETA apologies if that sounds liberal.

[Pierre]

I think there is a huge difference between monogamy and exclusivity.

 

I am opposed to monogamy for reasons I've stated previously. Yet I practise exclusivity within my R.

 

Once again you agree with me.

 

 

There is no contradiction. Polyamory is not compulsory for those who oppose the societal strictures of monogamy - any more than those of us who are pro choice feel the need to abort every foetus we may ever conceive.

 

Now you are talking about freedom and that is a different subject.

 

But, lets get back to the issue of not favoring monogamy. I am like you-------------- I am in a monogamous relationship. However, there are times when I would like to sleep with other women. It is nothing more than a random thought after talking to a female co-worker or just watching someone walking down the street.

 

Life would be wonderful if we could engage each other with no BS. However, these thoughts do not consume me. They are in and out of my head in an instant. But, sure, it would be nice if there were no complications. Nevertheless, if given a choice I rather have a single monogamous relationship than a series of meaningless ONS. I understand some men and woman crave multiple partners, but in my experience they are often looking for validation.

 

 

It's about the freedom to choose, not about imposing one practice or the other on everyone for all times.

 

ETA apologies if that sounds liberal.

 

I agree!

 

You could never be more liberal than me.:laugh: I am practically a communist.